Married man to be ordained as priest

[mark_a]

I find it odd that the Church will bend the rules to allow a married man be a Priest, but will stop not allow a woman to be one.

Even more odd would be for a man to become a nun.

You gotta draw the line somewhere. And no matter where you draw it, someone’s going to be upset.

 

[mark_a]

Some would argue that he selected Mary Magdeline as one of his apostles as I think in the Dead Sea Scrolls there was found a book written by her.

Some would also argue that Jesus was married to her and that their decendants live in France.

If Mary was the apostle of the apostles, why then is that not justification for women priests?

If she were an apostle, then maybe there would be justifaction. But *if *does not mean since.

 

[jamanne]

We have a married priest in Hamilton Ont.I believe he is one of six in Canada His children were adults when they all converted to RC he was ordained in 2002

 

[LemonAndLime]

Some would also argue that Jesus was married to her and that their decendants live in France.

If she were an apostle, then maybe there would be justifaction. But *if *does not mean since.

But the early Church described her as one, why not this one?

 

[rlg94086]

But the early Church described her as one, why not this one?

“Apostle to the apostles” is not one of Christ’s 12 chosen apostles. She was a disciple who was very close to Jesus, Mary and the apostles. She is a saint. She was not a priestess or bishop (the apostles were all bishops).

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Why suppose that his wife feels neglected? I’ve known several married priests, and this doesn’t really seem to be an issue. Often times the wives are very much involved in the parish, and in everything their husbands do, to the extent that they can be.

My son’s godfather is the son of a priest, and has nothing but the best things to say about it. People simply aren’t used to married priests, and to priests having families and people should stop assuming or presuming things, about these men and their families.

Indeed. It’s ignorant to speak of married priests as if they are an anomaly, when the eastern Catholic churches - in full communion with the pope - routinely ordain married men to the priesthood. Priestly celibacy is not a discipline in the eastern churches, and you’d think they’d change that if there were any such problems with it.

I find it odd that the Church will bend the rules to allow a married man be a Priest, but will stop not allow a woman to be one.

Well, to be fair, no one ever said that married priests and women “priests” are on the same level. The Latin church chooses, as a discipline, not to ordain married men to the priesthood. This is our rule, so it’s ours to bend. Ordaining women, by contrast, would be entirely outside the Church’s power and is not possible.

So I don’t think the comparison is really fair. If Holy Orders worked in such a way that it were possible for women to be ordained, then the Catholic Church would probably have exceptions there, too. But that’s not how it works.

“Apostle to the apostles” is not one of Christ’s 12 chosen apostles. She was a disciple who was very close to Jesus, Mary and the apostles. She is a saint. She was not a priestess or bishop (the apostles were all bishops).

Yeah, I always thought that “apostle to the Apostles” was simply a clever way of honoring her both for being the first one to encounter the risen Christ, and for bringing word back to the other disciples of the Resurrection. Is that right?

 

[LemonAndLime]

“Apostle to the apostles” is not one of Christ’s 12 chosen apostles. She was a disciple who was very close to Jesus, Mary and the apostles. She is a saint. She was not a priestess or bishop (the apostles were all bishops).

But do we have evidence that Mary was not ordained, rather than it being a case of “theres no evidence that she was, therefore she wasnt”. I mean, is there anywhere in the Bible that it was said “Mary was NOT made a bishop”.

Don’t forget that what went in the Bible was decided a 100 or so years after Christ. It was a very patriarchal society, and they picked and choosed what went in the Bible and what didn’t. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was and was just omitted because of societal norms of the times.

Sorry if I’m asking some contraversial questions, but these are easier asked online rather than at RCIA.

 

[rlg94086]

But do we have evidence that Mary was not ordained, rather than it being a case of “theres no evidence that she was, therefore she wasnt”. I mean, is there anywhere in the Bible that it was said “Mary was NOT made a bishop”.

You can’t prove a negative, and there is nothing in Scripture or Sacred Tradition indicating that she was. The Church deals with what she knows through revelation, not with what might have been.

LemonAndLime:

Don’t forget that what went in the Bible was decided a 100 or so years after Christ. It was a very patriarchal society, and they picked and choosed what went in the Bible and what didn’t. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was and was just omitted because of societal norms of the times.

100 or so years after Christ is a heck of a lot closer than 2000 years after Christ. I trust the Early Church Fathers who had no problem venerating the Virgin Mother of God and praising St Mary Magdalene, rather than listening to the modern theologians who are opposed to Church teaching.

LemonAndLime:

Sorry if I’m asking some contraversial questions, but these are easier asked online rather than at RCIA.

No need to apologize. This is the whole reason Catholic Answers exists!

 

[rlg94086]

Yeah, I always thought that “apostle to the Apostles” was simply a clever way of honoring her both for being the first one to encounter the risen Christ, and for bringing word back to the other disciples of the Resurrection. Is that right?

I don’t know much about the saying’s origin, but that sounds plausible. She was obviously very well thougt of by the Apostles and was very close to the Blessed Virgin Mary, since they were often together in the Gospel accounts.

 

[LemonAndLime]

You can’t prove a negative, and there is nothing in Scripture or Sacred Tradition indicating that she was. The Church deals with what she knows through revelation, not with what might have been.

True I can’t prove a negative, but a lack of saying one way or the other is a bit odd. Surely Jesus would have said at some point why only male? Is there any justification in Scripture rather than the assumption that there should only be male Priests because Jesus didn’t say we should have female ones? Thats no different from saying the opposite if there isn’t a Scripture reference, surely?

100 or so years after Christ is a heck of a lot closer than 2000 years after Christ. I trust the Early Church Fathers who had no problem venerating the Virgin Mother of God and praising St Mary Magdalene, rather than listening to the modern theologians who are opposed to Church teaching.

True, but my point was that it was a difficult cultural context, and not Jesus himself. Also, the Early Church did refer to her as an apostle. Why not now? And besides, if they were patriarchal in nature, they wouldn’t want to promote the idea that women left the home.

No need to apologize. This is the whole reason Catholic Answers exists!

Thanks, I don’t want people to take offence. I’m not questioning the authority of the Church, but I don’t know a lot about Scipture or the Church itself - hence the many questions!

 

[rlg94086]

True I can’t prove a negative, but a lack of saying one way or the other is a bit odd. Surely Jesus would have said at some point why only male? Is there any justification in Scripture rather than the assumption that there should only be male Priests because Jesus didn’t say we should have female ones? Thats no different from saying the opposite if there isn’t a Scripture reference, surely?

It isn’t an “assumption that there should only be male Priests because Jesus didn’t say we should have female ones.” We do what Jesus revealed to us. We rely on Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, not on what might be, could be, etc. As far as what Jesus “didn’t say,” there are plenty of examples. Not all of His teaching is written down, so saying “surely Jesus would have said” could be (was and is) used for a host of issues. Jesus didn’t forbid slavery, polygamy, etc., but we follow Church teaching in these regards. Do you feel that slavery should be allowed since Jesus didn’t say it shouldn’t?

LemonAndLime:

True, but my point was that it was a difficult cultural context, and not Jesus himself. Also, the Early Church did refer to her as an apostle. Why not now? And besides, if they were patriarchal in nature, they wouldn’t want to promote the idea that women left the home.

First of all, she was not referred to as “an apostle” but rather “an apostle to the apostles.” As I already explained, she would have been a bishop, if that were the case. Secondly, you have no evidence that they withheld Holy Orders from women due to cultural mores. Female disciples were very active in the early Church.

LemonAndLime:

Thanks, I don’t want people to take offence. I’m not questioning the authority of the Church, but I don’t know a lot about Scipture or the Church itself - hence the many questions!

Understood. As long as you are asking in a simple, non-combative tone, there is no reason for people to take offense. The challenge many CAF regulars have is that there are many heterodox and anti-Catholic posters trolling and/or here to pick a fight with faithful Catholics. Many grow weary and become defensive. Please forgive your fellow posters if we react poorly and always reflect on the tone and demeanor of your own posts.

 

[mark_a]

But do we have evidence that Mary was not ordained, rather than it being a case of “theres no evidence that she was, therefore she wasnt”. I mean, is there anywhere in the Bible that it was said “Mary was NOT made a bishop”.

Don’t forget that what went in the Bible was decided a 100 or so years after Christ. It was a very patriarchal society, and they picked and choosed what went in the Bible and what didn’t. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was and was just omitted because of societal norms of the times.

Sorry if I’m asking some contraversial questions, but these are easier asked online rather than at RCIA.

It seems like traditional Christianity might be a problem for you, but it wasn’t for these Women non-priest Doctors of the Church:

Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, and Therese of Lisieux.

 

[David2010]

Why suppose that his wife feels neglected? I’ve known several married priests, and this doesn’t really seem to be an issue. Often times the wives are very much involved in the parish, and in everything their husbands do, to the extent that they can be.

Hmmmnnn. . . I didn’t think of that. If she is also heavily involved in parish life too, that would be a good thing. I just imagined him as a sort of workaholic man who spends all his day in the office away from his family. Except in this case, instead of being in the office, or on a business trip all the time, he’d be getting pulled all over the community to be performing masses, baptisms, burials, weddings, counseling couples, accepting dinner invitations, hosting prayer meetings, speaking at CWL meetings, helping with children’s catechism plans, etc. Basically, being stretched so thin he wouldn’t have time for his wife.

 

[Petergee]

although all Catholic ritual churches today have a celibate episcopacy, that doesn’t change the fact that many of the Church’s first bishops were married, including St. Peter, the first bishop of Rome and thus the first pope.

In fact, there have been other validly married popes as well. Pope St. Silverius is the legitimate son of Pope St. Hormisdas. (Admittedly, St. Hormisdas was already a widower when elected pope, though.)

As was, almost certainly, St Peter at the time he became the first Pope. Why else would he have had his mother in law living with him and keeping house for him?
And for the first 1000 years of Christianity, married priests and deacons were expected to refrain from sexual relations with their wives after their ordination.

 

[brina1416]

One of the Priests at my parish is married with several children. He and his whole family converted together several years ago. I don’t see a problem with it really - he was married before he was ordained and he’s an excellent hospital chaplain and his masses are beautiful. He sings most of the words during mass.

I love when a priest sings the words during mass.

 

[Petergee]

Some would argue that he selected Mary Magdeline as one of his apostles as I think in the Dead Sea Scrolls there was found a book written by her.

No there wasn’t. The so-called Gospel of Mary Magdalen was a fraud written many centuries after the death of Mary Magdalen and of the dissolution of the Essene Jewish community which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Essenes were non-Christian Jews. Their scrolls do not include any part of the New Testament or any other writing which proclaims Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah.

If Mary was the apostle of the apostles, why then is that not justification for women priests?

The phrase is “apostle to the Apostles”. The small-a “apostle” in this sense means merely “one who is sent”.

 

[Petergee]

But do we have evidence that Mary was not ordained, rather than it being a case of “theres no evidence that she was, therefore she wasnt”. I mean, is there anywhere in the Bible that it was said “Mary was NOT made a bishop”.

Don’t forget that what went in the Bible was decided a 100 or so years after Christ. It was a very patriarchal society, and they picked and choosed what went in the Bible and what didn’t. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was and was just omitted because of societal norms of the times.

It is a very basic belief of Catholicism that God the Holy Spirit saw to it that what is written in the Bible (including the writing of each book and the choice of which books would be included) is exactly what He wanted to be there to give us His truth for the sake of our salvation, and not one word more or less. That is, God enabled the authors to overcome any influences of their societies which were contrary to God’s Truth.

In any case general society at the time would have been very accepting if the Church had had priestessess, and there was no societal pressure on the Church to ordain only men. Every other religion at the time, with the single exception of Judaism, had priestesses, in fact priestesses were more common than priests. The early church’s insistence on the male priesthood if anything only increased the persecution of Christian leaders.

Sorry if I’m asking some contraversial questions, but these are easier asked online rather than at RCIA.

They are exactly the sort of questions that you should be asking at RCIA sessions as well as here. You need to sort these things out before you enter the Church.
Very often I ask myself “why don’t our RCIA candidates ask questions more often, and more meaty questions about Church doctrines rather than about superficial things? Is their silence because they understand everything perfectly and fully accept it? Or do they totally fail to understand anything and are too embarrassed to say so? Or do they strongly disagree with what we are saying, but just smile and nod when we talk from a morbid fear of confrontation? Or are they not even listening but just resignedly going through the motions of process?”

In RCIA classes just as here at CAF, there is no such thing as a question which is too dumb or too controversial. As St Thomas Aquinas said, every objection to the Catholic faith can be refuted by rational discussion. Your RCIA leaders and parish priest need to know exactly what doubts and difficulties you are having with the faith so that they can know what to do to help you. And you can be 99.9% certain that the question/doubt you have has been discussed in the Church many times before, in most cases for nearly 2000 years.

 

[LemonAndLime]

It is a very basic belief of Catholicism that God the Holy Spirit saw to it that what is written in the Bible (including the writing of each book and the choice of which books would be included) is exactly what He wanted to be there to give us His truth for the sake of our salvation, and not one word more or less. That is, God enabled the authors to overcome any influences of their societies which were contrary to God’s Truth.

Ah okay, of course it makes sense. I can agree with that.

In any case general society at the time would have been very accepting if the Church had had priestessess, and there was no societal pressure on the Church to ordain only men. Every other religion at the time, with the single exception of Judaism, had priestesses, in fact priestesses were more common than priests. The early church’s insistence on the male priesthood if anything only increased the persecution of Christian leaders.

Do you have a source for that? I’m not disbelieving what you say but it interests me.

They are exactly the sort of questions that you should be asking at RCIA sessions as well as here. You need to sort these things out before you enter the Church.
Very often I ask myself “why don’t our RCIA candidates ask questions more often, and more meaty questions about Church doctrines rather than about superficial things? Is their silence because they understand everything perfectly and fully accept it? Or do they totally fail to understand anything and are too embarrassed to say so? Or do they strongly disagree with what we are saying, but just smile and nod when we talk from a morbid fear of confrontation? Or are they not even listening but just resignedly going through the motions of process?”

In RCIA classes just as here at CAF, there is no such thing as a question which is too dumb or too controversial. As St Thomas Aquinas said, every objection to the Catholic faith can be refuted by rational discussion. Your RCIA leaders and parish priest need to know exactly what doubts and difficulties you are having with the faith so that they can know what to do to help you. And you can be 99.9% certain that the question/doubt you have has been discussed in the Church many times before, in most cases for nearly 2000 years.

At RCIA it’s all a bit awkward still. Theres only about 5 of us, plus about just as many people who are already Catholics who I guess are there to get to know us and support us, and probably a few will end up being sponsors. At the end of the session we’re asked “Any questions, any at all?” - but more often than not some questions end up being asked by the Catholics in our group, I suppose to try and get us going. So far we’ve only done basic stuff - the concept of God as three persons for example, so the kinda questions I have won’t be asked until next year when we start to get into “sticky issues”. I’m the only person there who is there for the single purpose of converting - everyone else is there because they have children at the local Catholic school and wants to support them. One of those parents though is a lapsed Catholic and wants to get back “into it again”.

I want to say thanks for pretty much everyone being leniant with me and not being overly aggressive, and for taking the time to answer my questions. I’m really quite unknowledgeable about this sort of thing. If someone could point me in the direction of a good book or website in relation to why women aren’t ordainted then I’m quite happy to let this discussion get back on topic.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

As was, almost certainly, St Peter at the time he became the first Pope. Why else would he have had his mother in law living with him and keeping house for him?

Because she’s his wife’s mother, and he’s sharing her responsibility to care for her parents? Heck, even today this sometimes happens; when I was young, my mother’s mother lived in our house for awhile.

In any case, wouldn’t St. Peter have become the first pope - at least de facto - at Pentecost? But the Church father Clement of Alexandria was under the impression that St. Peter’s wife suffered martyrdom. So unless she was martyred before the Christian Church began…

I’m not saying you’re wrong; Clement of Alexandria could easily have been wrong. I’m just saying that there’s no need to make assumptions either way - whether Peter was a widower or not while he served as Apostle, bishop, and (de facto) pontiff neither threatens nor buttresses the case for clerical celibacy, which does not rely on history for its legitimacy (though I acknowledge that history does strengthen its importance, as for 1000 years now it has certainly been the norm in the Roman rite).

And for the first 1000 years of Christianity, married priests and deacons were expected to refrain from sexual relations with their wives after their ordination.

Do you have a source for this? I believe you’re likely mistaken, because I remember reading that one of the problems that clerical celibacy helped solve was how to apply a discipline that once existed for priests to abstain from sexual relations a day before offering Mass. When daily Mass became a regular practice in the seventh century, mandatory celibacy helped solve the question of how - indeed, whether - to continue to apply this discipline.

I apologize that I don’t have a source for that, even though I asked you for one. If you don’t remember where you read that married priests and deacons were always supposed to practice abstinence from sex, that’s okay.

At least today, though, we know that’s not the case - with married deacons or (in the eastern churches) married priests. I’d be very surprised if this modern practice did not reflect the ancient tradition.

I want to say thanks for pretty much everyone being leniant with me and not being overly aggressive, and for taking the time to answer my questions. I’m really quite unknowledgeable about this sort of thing. If someone could point me in the direction of a good book or website in relation to why women aren’t ordainted then I’m quite happy to let this discussion get back on topic.

Oh, no problem. As Petergee said, your questions and requests for explanation are most welcome.

 

[Petergee]

Do you have a source for that? I’m not disbelieving what you say but it interests me.

I can’t find the exact source where I read that priestesses were more common than priests, but these show that at least priestesses were very common in every pagan religion around the Mediterranean/Middle East:
ancienthistory.about.com/od/greeksociety/tp/Priestess.htm
touregypt.net/featurestories/women1.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest

And after 70 AD when (just as our Lord had prophesied 40 years earlier would happen “before this generation passes away”) the pagan Romans utterly destroyed the huge and magnificent Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (the only place where Jewish priests offered sacrifices) and killed its priests, Christianity became the only religion that had priests but not priestesses.

At RCIA it’s all a bit awkward still. Theres only about 5 of us, plus about just as many people who are already Catholics who I guess are there to get to know us and support us, and probably a few will end up being sponsors.

The parish should appoint a sponsor for you as soon as possible when you commence RCIA. And the sponsor should be available for you to discuss any question about the faith at any time.

I’m the only person there who is there for the single purpose of converting - everyone else is there because they have children at the local Catholic school and wants to support them. One of those parents though is a lapsed Catholic and wants to get back “into it again”.

I hope I’m not misunderstanding you, but RCIA is for people who have decided they want to become a Catholic, or at least to find out more about Catholicism with a vierw to possibly becoming a Catholic.